[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10213-10217]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11 
a.m. will be equally divided.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later today the Senate will once again have 
an opportunity to vote on whether to renew trade promotion authority. 
The Senate has already considered this issue once and the House has 
voted on it twice, each time demonstrating strong bipartisan support 
for TPA. My hope is that we can get to a similar result with today's 
vote in the Senate.
  We need to be clear about what is at stake. The United States is 
currently negotiating a number of trade agreements with some of our 
most important trading partners in the world. If the Senate fails to 
approve this bill, neither Congress nor the American people will have a 
strong voice during these negotiations. As a result, our Nation will 
not be able to get the best trade agreements possible, if we are able 
to advance any trade agreements at all. Some people, including some of 
our colleagues, may be fine with that result. They do not think we need 
trade agreements to promote a healthy economy. But nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  As we all know, most of the world's consumers live outside our 
borders--95 percent of them. In addition, the vast majority of economic 
growth in the world is likely to occur outside of the United States 
over the next decade. If our workers, farmers, ranchers, and service 
providers are going to be able to compete in these growing markets, we 
must have open access to these markets and fair trade rules to boot. 
Without strong trade agreements, neither of these is possible.
  When it comes to international trade, we cannot stand still. If we 
don't lead and set the rules of the game, other nations will and our 
economy will be left behind.
  The United States continues to be a leader in agricultural exports 
throughout the world. In fact, we still export more agricultural goods 
than any other country. In addition, the United States continues to 
boast an enormous manufacturing base that supplies consumers in every 
corner of the globe.
  We also lead the world in technology, digital services, and 
innovation. Indeed, not only do we lead the world in creation of 
intellectual property, America essentially created the modern digital 
landscape.
  The United States also continues to lead in trade in services, 
exporting more than $700 billion in services in 2014 alone. That is 
more than twice as much as the United Kingdom, the world's second 
highest services exporter.
  I ask that the Parliamentarian let me know when my 10 minutes has 
expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. HATCH. In other words, we know we can compete on the world stage 
when the rules are fair and the playing field is level. That is why I 
am such a strong proponent of this TPA legislation. This bill, which is 
the product of a great deal of work and a lot of bipartisan 
cooperation, will have a powerful and positive impact on industries 
throughout our economy, on consumers, and, of course, on American 
workers as well.
  In an America that embraces international trade, I believe even those 
individuals who encounter a temporary setback can find new 
opportunities, can out-work, out-produce, out-think, and out-innovate 
our global competition so long as the groundwork has been laid to give 
them those opportunities. That is why we need strong trade agreements, 
and that is why we need TPA.
  As you can surely tell, I feel very passionately about free trade, 
and I know many of my colleagues are just as passionate in their 
opposition. But as Congress has considered this legislation, I think we 
have had a full and fair debate on these issues. We have been 
transparent on the substance of the bill and in the way things have 
moved forward. Both sides have been able to make their case to the 
American people.
  It is at times such as these when working in Congress is the most 
rewarding. We have the opportunity to hear so many different accounts, 
sift through mountains of data and research, meet with hundreds of 
interested parties representing thousands of our constituents, and work 
through hotly contested differences. Then, after all of that work, when 
circumstances are right, we are able to come up with bipartisan 
legislation that addresses the needs of our country, our constituents, 
and our economy. That is what we have been able to do with this TPA 
debate, which is a debate that has been going on for many years now.
  I still want to work with those who may not share all my views on all 
these issues. One way we have agreed to do that is to help ensure that 
trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, will be extended. As you know, TAA 
has been included in the trade preferences bill the Senate will 
hopefully vote on later this week after we pass TPA.
  I have said many times that I am not a fan of TAA. Personally, I 
think the program is redundant and ineffective. However, after 38 years 
here in the Senate, believe me, I am well aware that everything is not 
about me. I understand TAA is a priority for a number of my colleagues 
and that it continues to be the price of admission for many who want to 
support TPA. The Senate majority leader recognizes this as well, which 
is why he has committed to ensuring that TAA gets a fair vote here in 
the Senate and a fair opportunity to pass.
  Throughout this process, we have done all we can, within reason, to 
accommodate the concerns of Senators. I am very appreciative of all the 
support we have received from Members on both sides of the aisle. We 
couldn't have gotten this far without that support.
  Now it is time to finish the work--to pass this bill and get it to 
the President's desk. We need this bill to ensure that our 
constituents' voices are heard in the trade negotiating process. We 
need this bill to give our trade negotiators the tools they need to get 
a good deal. And we need this bill to expand access to foreign markets 
so that we can grow our economy and create new and high-paying jobs 
here at home. That is what this bill is all about and why we have been 
working on this process for so long. We are very close to the finish 
line, and we need just one more burst of energy and a few more steps to 
get us there.
  I urge all my colleagues who support free trade, open markets, and 
the advancement of American values and interests abroad to join me once 
again in supporting TPA and working with me and with my colleague 
Senator Wyden to get all the pending trade bills passed in the Senate 
and signed into law.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, over the last several weeks on the floor of 
both this body and the House, we have heard Members, colleagues, say 
they are tired of the old 1990s North American Free Trade Agreement 
playbook on trade. They are concerned that the package which is once 
again before the Senate is more of the same.
  Here is my message on why this legislation needs to move forward. If 
you believe those policies of the 1990s failed to protect American 
workers and strengthen our economy, this is our chance to set a new 
course. This is our chance to put in place higher standards in global 
trade on matters such as labor rights and environmental protection, to 
shine some real sunlight on trade agreements and ensure that our 
country writes the rules of the road.
  The fact is, in 2015, globalization is a reality. The choice is 
whether to sit back and allow globalization to push and pull on our 
economy until in ways dictated by countries in China. So our

[[Page 10214]]

choice is either to move now and get into the center of the ring and 
fight for a stronger economic future, protect our workers and promote 
our values, or remain tethered to many of those old policies of the 
1990s.
  I say to the Senate today: If you believe, like me, that it is time 
once and for all to close the books on the North American free-trade 
era in trade, this legislation deserves your support.
  In my hometown paper recently, there was an opinion article, and it 
stated that this trade bill lays out ``a hard-and-fast checklist for 
the TPP, holding the Obama administration accountable for meeting its 
goals and conditions.'' The article goes on to say that this 
legislation ``will reorient priorities and improve the process for the 
TPP and other trade agreements in the future.'' I completely agree with 
that view, but the Senate doesn't have to take my word for it. Those 
are the words of Tim Nesbitt, the past president of the Oregon AFL-CIO, 
who has disagreed with me on trade often over the years. Yet now he 
states that this legislation we will vote on today provides a fresh 
opportunity for trade done right.
  When it comes to core American values--labor rights, environmental 
protection, and human rights--this legislation raises the bar and 
demands more from our trade negotiators than ever before.
  We have talked a lot about a race to the bottom. My view is that if 
our country doesn't fight to protect worker rights and the environment 
with tough, enforceable trade agreements, those priorities are going to 
wither away. China is certainly not going to take up the banner for 
American values in trade. So if you believe America should stop a race 
to the bottom on labor rights, environmental safeguards, and human 
rights, this legislation is our chance to lift up global standards.
  I want to talk for a moment about the economic potential of this 
legislation. What we all understand we need to do is make things here, 
grow things here, add value to them here, and then ship them somewhere. 
My State knows how to make this happen, and so do many others. About 
one out of five jobs in Oregon depends on international trade. Almost 
90 percent of them are small and medium sized. And what we know is that 
in many instances those jobs pay better.
  The fact is, if our farmers want to sell their products in Japan--and 
this is true of agriculture all over America. A lot of our farmers face 
average tariffs of 40 percent. That is right. If you want to export 
some jam to Vietnam, it will be marked up by 90 percent. If you want to 
sell a bottle of wine--and we have wine growers with prosperous 
businesses all over the country--they have to fork over 50 percent of 
the value to the government. So if we believe other countries should 
open their markets to American exports, like the U.S. is open to 
theirs, this is our chance to break down the tariffs and other 
barriers.
  I want to touch for a moment again on how different this is than the 
1990s. In the 1990s, nobody could have imagined the right tools to 
protect the modern Internet. Twenty-five years ago, it was impossible 
to make a living by setting up a business online. A cell phone was as 
big as a brick. In fact, the NAFTA negotiations began a year before the 
first Web site was set up. Today, Internet commerce is at the heart of 
our economy. If we want to cement America's leadership in the digital 
economy, this is our chance to vote for trade policies that will 
protect a free and open Internet.
  Now, I wish to mention again, apropos of how different this is, that 
I have felt for some time that critics of past trade policy have been 
spot on with respect to a lot of this secrecy which is just gratuitous. 
If we believe deeply in trade, as Chairman Hatch and I do, and want 
more of it, why should we have all this unnecessary secrecy which just 
makes people cynical about trade?
  So we have brought sunshine to this trade debate in a way that is 
unprecedented. For the first time, before the President can sign a 
deal, the full text has to be released to the public for 60 days. 
Before we can have votes in the other body and in the Senate, there 
will be no fewer than 4 months where people can open a proposed trade 
deal and read it for themselves.
  So picture that: For 4 months, the American people will have in their 
hands--starting with the TPP--what the trade agreement is all about. 
That is simply unprecedented.
  I wish to close the question of how we are going to proceed from 
here. This has obviously been a complicated piece of legislation. I 
appreciate the Senate and House leaders have committed to moving trade 
adjustment assistance alongside trade promotion authority as well as a 
proposal that originated with Senator Brown to strengthen our 
critically important trade enforcement laws. While the goal of enacting 
trade policies is a tool to give all Americans a chance to get ahead, 
trade adjustment assistance is an absolute must-pass bill, and I am 
confident it is going to get through Congress to the President's desk. 
That bill includes the vitally important program also that creates new 
opportunities for impoverished nations in Africa.
  The Customs enforcement bill is also moving forward on a bipartisan 
basis, and there is important work there to be done. The Senate must 
resolve differences in the enforcement bill with the other body. I wish 
to make it clear this morning that I expect that conference to respect 
Democratic priorities. My Democratic colleagues and I will be laying 
down markers on several of our top priorities. I discussed those 
priorities with Chairman Ryan last night. Those priorities include 
provisions in the Senate bill championed by Senator Shaheen to help our 
small businesses, provisions authored by Senator Bennet to address 
enforcement environmental laws, and Senator Cantwell's important trade 
enforcement trust fund.
  In my view, the Congress has an opportunity in this legislation to 
show it can work in a bipartisan way to take on one of the premier 
economic challenges of our time. Our job is to get past the policies of 
the 1990s and move toward getting trade done right.
  Colleagues, let's pry open foreign markets and send more of our 
exports abroad. Let's fight for the American brand and the Oregon brand 
against the trade chiefs and the bad actors who are blocking our way, 
and let's raise the bar for American values and open our trade policies 
to sunlight.
  I urge all in the Senate to vote yes on cloture today and to support 
this package as it advances this week. In effect, we get three 
important bills done this week and set in motion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the motion to invoke 
cloture on TPA, the so-called fast-track legislation. I am still 
incredulous, as I have watched this trade nondebate, if you will, at 
the speed at which, time after time, the majority leader has tried to 
shut down debate. It has happened again and again, and that is 
compounded by the secrecy of this whole process.
  I can't count the number of times in my State of Ohio and in meetings 
in Washington, with people from all over the country, that people have 
said we have little or no access to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPA, 
in the past--fast-track--has actually been sort of a rule book for how 
we should negotiate trade agreements and, at the same time, has been a 
direction on how to negotiate these trade agreements and a rule book on 
how it is presented on the Senate floor. Yet none of the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership negotiations by Ambassador Froman have been informed at all 
by a TPA because we haven't had a TPA yet. We haven't even had an 
instruction booklet in the past. At the same time, we have gotten the 
worst of both worlds because we are voting on TPA, and we really 
haven't been able

[[Page 10215]]

to see what is in TPP. I know supporters of TPP will say we are going 
to have 60 days now, but Members are casting their votes now--where 60 
votes are required and they have maximum leverage--to put no final 
point on it, just giving up the leverage they have as we are still kept 
in the dark on what is happening.
  Let me give one example before I get to where I think we are making a 
mistake by moving so quickly today, in essence, fast-tracking fast-
track.
  One example, my office and I personally have repeatedly spoken to the 
President of the United States and the U.S. Trade Representative, 
Ambassador Froman, repeatedly asking them to fix some of the language 
on tobacco. Because one of the things that apparently--we really don't 
know for sure--the Trans-Pacific Partnership does is
it gives even more power to American
tobacco companies--more power to American tobacco companies to have 
influence over laws in particularly small countries which don't have 
the wherewithal and can't afford the huge legal bills a large tobacco 
company can afford to write public health law.
  If a small country wants to write a law to protect their children 
from marketing of tobacco products--which is what we have done in this 
country--the U.S. tobacco company or British tobacco company can--let's 
keep it here. The U.S. tobacco company can threaten a lawsuit against 
those countries, and those countries are probably going to back off 
because they probably can't afford to go to court with the big American 
tobacco company. Even something as clearly violative of the public 
interest and of public health as what damage Big Tobacco inflicts on 
children has not, to our knowledge, been addressed. Again, so much of 
this is secretive that we don't even know that.
  That is why there is anger in this country and why there is--so many 
people in this country tell me, so many in my State: Why are you moving 
so fast? Why is this coming up right now? Why don't we know more about 
this whole process?
  Yet again, the majority leader is shutting down debate. He will be 
joined, I assume, by a small number, a distinct, small number of 
minority Democrats, getting up over the 60-vote margin so they can shut 
down debate, so they can move the TPA--the fast-track--forward, so they 
can get the Trans-Pacific Partnership down the road.
  No matter which side of the TPP debate, no matter which side of the 
trade promotion authority, TPA, fast-track--no matter which side you 
are on, it is clear that our trade policy creates winners and losers. 
It is clear. Even the most vigorous cheerleaders for free trade--the 
Wall Street Journal editorial board, for instance--even the strongest 
free-traders, even though people who reflectively support these free-
trade agreements acknowledge there are winners and losers.
  They will argue that these trade agreements create more jobs than 
they lose. I don't agree with that. They argue that. Put that aside. 
But they also acknowledge that people lose jobs because of decisions we 
make.
  We are about to pass fast-track here. We are about to pass trade 
promotion authority, leading probably to the Trans-Pacific Partnership 
having a reasonable chance of passage. We are about to do that. We are 
making that decision here. Members of Congress, people who are well 
paid, with government-financed retirements and health care--we are 
about to make those decisions, and we know--we are knowingly making 
that decision, acknowledging that some people will lose their jobs 
because of a decision we make, but we are not going to take care of 
those workers. We are going to pass today the TPA, the trade promotion 
authority, fast-track. We are going to pass that and ignore those 
workers. How shameful is that that we know the decisions we are making 
in this body--we are making the decisions, the President of the United 
States makes this decision, the House of Representatives has made this 
decision, the Senate is about to make this decision, we are making this 
decision, knowing people will lose their jobs because of our actions. 
Yet we are unwilling to provide for those workers who lose their jobs.
  Let me give a little history, a special message to Congress. In 
January of 1962, President Kennedy said:

       When considerations of national policy make it desirable to 
     avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition 
     should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. 
     Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in 
     part by the Federal Government.

  That is President Kennedy at the advent, at the beginning, at the 
creation of the trade adjustment assistance, the support for workers 
who lose their jobs because of--again, I repeat--decisions we make in 
this body, in the House of Representatives, in the White House. We make 
decisions on trade. We know people will lose their jobs. We should help 
them. It should be our moral responsibility to help them.
  Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana said: ``No small group of firms and 
workers should be made to bear the full burden of the costs of a 
program whose great benefits enrich the Nation as a whole.''
  This is as true today as it was 53 years ago. It is not a Democratic 
idea. It is not a Republican idea. Everyone from the Cato Institute--a 
libertarian-oriented think tank in Washington, a bunch of well-paid 
scholars who make pronouncements from on high about various kinds of 
public policy issues--to the Wall Street Journal--a similar body but 
one with greater ability to disseminate information--even those two 
venerable institutions admit the trade agreements do not create winners 
everywhere.
  A Cato Institute trade briefing says, ``All of those job losses are a 
painful but necessary part of the larger process of innovation and 
productivity increases.''
  I am always a bit amused when people who--again, well-educated, good 
pay, dress like this, good benefits, good retirement, good health 
care--make pronunciations saying: Well, job losses are painful--not to 
us, of course. The same as editorial writers who make these decisions, 
these pronouncements on trade, they are not losing their jobs. People 
in my State are losing jobs on these fair trade agreements. We are 
going to inflict this pain. As the Cato Institute and the Wall Street 
Journal say, by the decisions we make, we are going to inflict pain on 
these workers. People are going to lose jobs in my town of Mansfield, 
OH. People are going to lose jobs where I grew up. People are going to 
lose jobs in Cleveland where I live now. People are going to lose jobs 
in Zanesville and Newark because of decisions we make today on fast-
track, because of decisions we will make next year on the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership. People are going to lose their jobs, but we are going to 
vote today to cut off debate, and we are going to forget, at least 
temporarily, about helping those workers who lose jobs because of 
decisions we make. How immoral is that? How shameful is that? What a 
betrayal we are inflicting on those workers if we make this decision 
today.
  Former Wall Street Journal economics editor David Wessel writes, 
``Even [free trade's] most fervent admirers concede trade creates 
winners and losers.''
  I will debate until the cows come home the net benefits of these 
trade agreements. I think they are net job loss. But even if you 
believe these trade agreements are net job-gainers--I don't think there 
is a lot of evidence of that--but even if you believe that, we know 
people lose their jobs because of decisions we make. That is why 
Republicans in the past have supported trade adjustment assistance in 
principle and in policy going back decades.
  Fifteen years ago, President George W. Bush said, ``I recognize that 
some American workers may face adjustment challenges''--that means they 
get thrown out of work. It is a nice way a President might talk about 
people he has left behind. Put that aside. ``I recognize that some 
American workers may face adjustment challenges as a result of trade.''
  At least to President Bush's credit--I wish his words would be 
followed today on this floor by the majority

[[Page 10216]]

leader, by Republican Leader McConnell as he cuts off debate and leaves 
behind trade adjustment assistance. President Bush said, ``I support 
helping these workers by reauthorizing and improving trade adjustment 
assistance programs that will give workers impacted by trade new 
skills, help them find new jobs quickly, and provide them with 
financial assistance.''
  I can give lots of stories about people I know in Youngstown, Lima, 
Dayton, Hamilton, and people in Portsmouth who lost their jobs because 
of trade, but at least they have gotten a helping hand from a 
government that used to have their backs and believe in them--at least 
until today--from a government that actually will extend that hand and 
help them retrain. Maybe they can become a nurse, maybe they can work 
in information technology, maybe they can become a radiology 
technologist at the local hospital.
  Earlier this year, my colleague John Cornyn--Republican from Texas, 
the senior Senator and assistant Republican leader--told reporters that 
``there is no doubt that the benefits of more trade do not fall 
uniformly. There are some segments of the economy that don't prosper as 
well.''
  We know that. We have seen that acknowledgement across the board. Yet 
today Leader McConnell is going to cut off debate, even though 
decisions we have made have cost people their jobs. That is why we have 
a moral obligation. It is not a new idea. It is not a partisan idea. It 
is universally accepted. Trade deals don't benefit everybody. That is 
why this moral obligation to include trade adjustment assistance in any 
package with TPA is so important.
  We can't send a framework for a new trade deal to the President's 
desk without assistance for the workers who will be left behind, but 
that is not what we are doing today. Today, it is full-speed ahead, cut 
off debate, move ahead on fast-track, move ahead on trade promotion 
authority.
  I assume a number of my Democratic colleagues are going along with 
it. I hope the wrath of people in this country--if the House and Senate 
refuse to do what some of their leaders say they will, that they will 
pass trade adjustment assistance, that they will take care of those 
workers--if they don't live up to that promise--and many times in the 
past they haven't lived up to similar promises--a lot of my colleagues 
are going to go home and face people who say: Wait. You made a 
decision. I got thrown out of a job because of a decision you made, 
because of a decision you made as a House Member, because of a decision 
you made as a Senator, because of a decision you made, Mr. President. I 
was thrown out of work, and you passed on June 23--or whatever today 
is--fast-track without taking care of me, even though it was your 
decision that I lose my job.
  What kind of government--what kind of principles do we live under 
here?
  In March, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in 
National Review Online:

       To be sure, any trade deal, while a net plus overall, 
     produces winners and losers. But the TPP will be accompanied 
     by so-called Trade Adjustment Assistance, training and 
     subsidies to help those negatively affected.

  Again, Krauthammer, as he is about 95 percent of the time, is wrong. 
He is wrong that it is going to be accompanied by the trade adjustment 
assistance. The assumption all along, even among TPP proponents, has 
been that TPA would be passed in tandem with aid for workers. But you 
know, even though that is what we did first here, Republicans in the 
House of Representatives are unwilling to vote for them together. They 
are just not going to vote. Speaker Boehner, for some reason, 
acquiesced to the President of the United States, pulled them apart, 
and had separate votes. Think about the message we will send. If we put 
another huge trade deal--parenthetically, once-majority leader, 
Republican leader Trent Lott said: You can't pass a trade agreement in 
an even-numbered year. Do you know why he said that? He said that 
because people don't like trade deals in this country. People know 
NAFTA sold them out. They know CAFTA sold them out. They know PNTR with 
China sold them out. They know Korea sold them out. We heard these 
promises over and over.
  With NAFTA, we were promised 200,000 jobs in 2 years. Thank you, 
President Bush 1, and thank you, President Clinton, for that. We lost 
680,000 net jobs. Central America Free Trade Agreement--thank you, 
President Bush 2, for that. Promises were made, big promises about job 
increases, big promises about wages going up. It didn't happen. Wages 
stayed flat. Jobs were lost. Thank you, President Bush 2, for that.
  Korea, South Korea Free Trade Agreement, negotiated in part by 
President Bush, pushed through the Senate by President Obama--thank 
you, Mr. Presidents of both parties, for that. They told us 70,000 jobs 
would be created out of the South Korea Free Trade Agreement. No, we 
have lost 75,000 jobs.
  Using the same formula that we have--we have seen this over and over. 
We know what happens. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 
between 2009 and 2012, two-thirds of displaced manufacturing workers 
who did find new jobs ended up taking lower paying jobs. Most of those 
workers saw wage losses of more than 20 percent.
  You can debate whether the gains others experienced make these losses 
worth it. I don't think they do. I think if you have traveled darned 
near anywhere--if Members of Congress spent a little more time with 
people who can't contribute to them, with people who don't belong to a 
local rotary club, with people who might just work hard, play by the 
rules, not make a lot of money, barely make it, sometimes have their 
house foreclosed on, sometimes lose their job--if we would spend a 
little more time with people like that, I think we would see how these 
trade agreements are working.
  There is a debate to be had. I will cede it is debatable, whether 
these trade agreements--whether the evidence is that they create jobs 
or lose jobs. I think it is pretty clear they lose jobs. But there is 
no debate. There is no debate on what actually happens here. Because of 
decisions--I will repeat--before this vote coming up in about 60 
seconds, because of decisions we make in this body--the President 
makes, Senators make, Congress men and women make--because of decisions 
we make in this body, people in our States, whether it is Arkansas or 
Arizona, Oregon, Utah or my State of Ohio, people lose jobs because of 
decisions we make. There is no question people lose jobs because of 
decisions we make. Anything short of providing for those workers who 
lose their jobs today, not doing this on a promise--we are basically 
trusting the majority leader who doesn't really like, I understand, the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. We are relying on the word of 
Speaker Boehner, who doesn't particularly like trade adjustment 
assistance. We know most of the Members of his party in the House of 
Representatives do not particularly like trade adjustment assistance. 
We are going to rely on their promise.
  We are voting today on the fly. We are saying to workers in this 
country: Yes, we have made decisions that may have cost you your job. 
We are going to try to help you when you lose that job, but we are 
still going to go ahead today and do that. That is why I asked my 
colleagues to vote no on this motion today to invoke cloture on trade 
promotion authority.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to

[[Page 10217]]

     the Senate amendment to H.R. 2146, an act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Federal law 
     enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic 
     controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from 
     governmental plans after age 50, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Johnny Isakson, David Perdue, Chuck 
           Grassley, Thom Tillis, Marco Rubio, Daniel Coats, John 
           Cornyn, Michael B. Enzi, Kelly Ayotte, Orrin G. Hatch, 
           Roger F. Wicker, Deb Fischer, Rob Portman, Cory 
           Gardner, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
2146 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. 
Lee).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 218 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Lankford
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Corker
     Lee
     Menendez
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 
37.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.


                            Vote Explanation

 Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for 
rollcall vote No. 218, the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to 
concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2146, 
trade promotion authority. Had I been present, I would have voted 
nay.

                          ____________________